The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging unfair labour practice under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, even if the unfair labour practice is imminent and has not yet occurred.

JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---This is a writ petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay directed against an order dated 6-1-1989 passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Bombay, in Complaint (ULP) No. 558 of 1988. In the month of March 1988, the three respondents, who are employees of the Municipal Corporation, were placed under suspension pursuant to the loss of a certain amount of money which was kept in one out of three bags and which had been entrusted to them for the purpose of disbursement of wages to municipal employees. The Bombay Municipal Corporation, prima facie, held the three respondents responsible for the loss in question and they were, therefore, placed under suspension on 23-3-1989, pending disciplinary proceedings. A complaint came to be filed in the month of April 1988 by these employees under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act"), the grievance being that the three applicants namely, the present respondents Nos. 1 to 3, had already been transferred to different jobs and that there was neither warrant nor justification for placing them under suspension, the consequences of which were serious and far-reaching. Relying on the Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the applicants namely, the present respondents Nos. 1 to 3, contended that there was total non-application of mind and that they had been mechanically suspended without there being justification either on fact or in law and that they were virtually victimised. It was their case that a theft had occurred in respect of the cash; and as a face-saving device in order to cover up the lack of proper security on the part of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, that they had been placed under suspension and to this extent it was contended that the act of the Bombay Municipal Corporation constituted an unfair labour practice under item (9) of Schedule IV to the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Court, after hearing the parties, passed an interim order dated 6-1-1989, which order has been challenged by the Bombay Municipal Corporation through the present writ petition. The Court, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the Bombay Municipal Corporation had the right to suspend the three employees under the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Municipal Servant Conduct and Disciplinary Rules framed under the Municipal Services Regulations.

2. The Court, however, went into another aspect of the case because by that time a period of more than 9 months had elapsed since the employees were placed under suspension without the disciplinary proceedings making much progress. The Court, therefore, noted that the Rules in question do not make a provision for any outer limit with regard to the duration for which an employee can be kept under suspension and, therefore, observed that this period of suspension should not be unlimited and that there should be some restrictions put on the period of suspension, as it is extremely difficult for an employee to survive on the subsistence allowance that he receives. As regards these observations made by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, there can be no two opinions about the fact that in the course of the last few years, Courts have been repeatedly required to come down heavily on the action of the Authorities and employers who resorted to the use of the power of suspension and thereafter did not proceed with or complete the disciplinary proceedings with the degree of urgency that is necessary. This court has, in a number of cases ,set aside the suspension orders on the ground that it was not in the public interest that an employee should be paid the whole or any part of his salary and should be kept away from his work station unless there are very grave and very compelling reasons to do so. In the absence of those reasons, this court has taken th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document